Benchmark: Test parameter object 4

Script Preparation code:

var number1 = 1;
var number2 = 2;

function f1 (a, b, c) { return a + b + c; }
function f2 ({a, b, c}) { return a + b + c;}

Tests:

Without parameter object
f1(number1, number2, Math.random());
with paramenter object
f2({a: number1, b: number2, c: Math.random()})

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Without parameter object
with paramenter object

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one month ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided JSON data to understand what is being tested in this JavaScript microbenchmark.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition is represented by a JSON object that contains two scripts: `f1` and `f2`. Both functions are designed to add three numbers together. The difference between them lies in how they handle function arguments:

*   **Script Preparation Code**: This section defines the variables `number1`, `number2`, and `Math.random()`, which will be used as input values for the functions.
*   **Html Preparation Code**: Since there is no HTML preparation code, this suggests that the benchmark might focus solely on the JavaScript execution aspect.

**Function Differences**

The two main differences between `f1` and `f2` are:

*   **Parameter Passing Style**: `f1` uses positional arguments (`a`, `b`, `c`), whereas `f2` uses an object literal syntax (`{a: number1, b: number2, c: Math.random()}`).
*   **Function Signature**: The function signatures for both `f1` and `f2` are identical, with the same parameters (`a`, `b`, `c`). However, `f2` uses a spread syntax (`{...}`, which is used to merge objects in JavaScript.

**Pros and Cons of Different Approaches**

*   **Positional Argument Style (f1)**:
    *   Pros: Efficient for simple functions with fixed parameters.
    *   Cons: Less readable when dealing with complex arguments or optional parameters.
*   **Object Literal Syntax (f2)**:
    *   Pros: More concise and easier to read, especially for complex objects with multiple properties.
    *   Cons: May be slower due to the overhead of object creation.

**Library Usage**

There is no explicit library usage in this benchmark. However, it's essential to note that some JavaScript engines may have built-in optimizations or features that affect execution performance, such as:

*   **Just-In-Time (JIT) compilation**: Some browsers like Chrome employ JIT compilation for performance optimization.
*   **Function caching**: Browsers might cache frequently called functions to improve performance.

**Special JS Features**

The benchmark uses the `Math.random()` function to introduce some randomness in the input values. This can help simulate real-world usage scenarios and ensure that the results are not skewed towards specific inputs.

**Alternatives**

Some alternatives for creating benchmarks include:

*   **Benchmarking frameworks**: Tools like Benchmark.js, Fastbench, or Micro-Benchmark provide a structured approach to benchmarking JavaScript code.
*   **WebAssembly (WASM) benchmarks**: If you're interested in WebAssembly, you can create benchmarks using the WASM runtime and explore its performance characteristics.

Keep in mind that each alternative has its own strengths and weaknesses.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one month ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/130.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 130 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Without parameter object	5693032.0 Ops/sec
with paramenter object	5693307.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Test parameter object 4 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Without parameter object vs with paramenter object

Created: one month ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Without parameter object

with paramenter object

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one month ago):